The Lawrence verdict and racism in Britain

The Lawrence verdict and racism in Britain

Wednesday 4 January 2012 16.00 EST
First published on Wednesday 4 January 2012 16.00 EST

Two key social issues arise from the trial of two of Stephen Lawrence's murderers (After 18 years, justice, 4 January). The first is that the then government, under both Thatcher and Major, would not countenance any criticism of the police, especially by black people adversely affected by policing, nor did it acknowledge that institutions were often providing different and less equal standards against which black people were judged and treated. Those of us who did raise these charges in the 1970s, 80s and 90s were accused of having a chip on our shoulder, being "politically correct" and dismissed as "loony". The second issue prevalent at the time of the failed private prosecutions and still resonant is that of equating racism with violent thuggery. I have long been dismayed that some people think that it's offensive for their behaviour to be called racist – when a black person thinks it is. I recall training police officers at Hendon police training centre before and after the McPherson report into Stephen Lawrence's death. I was routinely shocked at the amount hostility and aggression towards me because I agreed with McPherson on the topic of institutional racism. It was ironic that the definition had been used widely by Herman Ouseley, myself and many others in the 1980s but was clearly not heard. Institutional racism remains a definition of the culture, ethos and practices of an organisation – not the individual thoughts or value systems of every individual within that organisation. And yet police officers training to be trainers felt that I personally was accusing them of being racists. If racism is defined only in terms of the extreme manifestation of Stephen's racist murder, we lose sight of the meaning intend by the old Race Relations Act and the new Equality Act – that anyone who treats another person "less favourably" because of their colour or ethnic or national origin is guilty of racism.

I raise these points now because there is a danger that racism will again be seen as something only done by white working-class thugs. The number of white working-class people who are racist is not greater than that of racist white middle-class people. Sadly, one of the first actions of the home secretary in her role as lead of equality was to drop section 1 of the Equality Act 2010. This clumsily worded provision was the first to acknowledge and seek to diminish discrimination on grounds of social class. No substitute has been offered and so those who feel white working-class people have been ignored are correct. The point about equality of treatment is that it has to be equal and fair to everyone.

I have been a campaigner against all forms of discrimination for over 30 years; some things have changed for the better, but only after the struggles for justice of people like Doreen and Neville Lawrence. Not only does justice need to be done in this particular case, it surely must be done for everyone in all areas of life. Linda BellosChair, Institute of Equality and Diversity Practitioners

• Media coverage of the Lawrence murder case has rightly emphasised the radical overhaul of the police following the Macpherson report. But even though the entire force was described as institutionally racist, it took years for the average officer to even acknowledge a problem. I had first-hand experience of this intransigence when I was contracted by the crime reduction charity, Nacro, to develop professional standards for national police training. In essence, I had to spell out how officers should behave in a non-racist way. To say it was an uphill struggle would be a gross understatement. After 18 months of drafting, a steering group made up of representatives from National Police Training and the Metropolitan police finally agreed to pilot the standards for three months in London, south Wales, the north-east and the north-west. With the exception of the north-west pilot site, officers involved in the pilots were uncooperative to the point of being contemptuous. The standards were seen as an imposition, based on a false premise. Many officers totally rejected the idea that police racism was institutionalised. Others thought that treating black people equally was the same as treating them more favourably. I was often asked 'What about all the white people then?'

But there was an outstanding exception. In one pilot site a high-ranking officer voluntarily took charge of the pilot, working with a team of black, white and Asian officers. At the end of a successful three months, he told me that he was an officer in Bristol during the St Paul's riots in 1980. "The police started those riots," he said. "We were told to. The inspector told us to hit black people on the back of their heads. Don't worry about it, he said, you won't hurt them, they've got all that woolly hair. To my shame I didn't say anything. Nor did anyone else. I've been trying to put it right ever since." I think most copies of the standards ultimately just got put on shelves and got dusty. I don't think this matters. I've come to the conclusion that if you've got police officers with the right attitude you don't need lengthy specifications of what they should or shouldn't be doing. And if people are racist, then any amount of guidance will make no difference.

To deal with institutional racism you just need good leaders, with absolutely no tolerance for racist behaviour and with the courage to sack people.Janet MaitlandLondon

• Your editorial (A generation of shame, 4 January) centred on police failures. Most people of all races rightly give Stephen's parents credit for their dignity and persistence in seeking justice for almost 19 years. They have presented themselves in a reasoned and educated manner. Stephen was intending to study architecture and he and his friend were the innocent victims of a unprovoked attack. These circumstances have made it far easier for the white population to identify and empathise with such a family than if they had come across as uneducated and threatening. They can be seen as more of an exception— more like "us" and not like "them". Would the case have gained so much notoriety had the Lawrences been living on benefits, and their son presented as an petty criminal But this is often how black people are presented in the press and discussed by groups of white people. For many years I lived near where Stephen died and although I saw many reasons for optimism, I saw few signs of white attitudes towards the black community were changing. Mrs Lawrence was right. The verdicts were no cause for celebration.Derek HeptinstallBroadstairs, Kent

• The tragic death of Stephen Lawrence helped to change the terms of the debate on race and policing while providing a withering spotlight on what until now, with two of the perpetrators of this heinous crime, having been convicted of his murder, had been a searing injustice. There is a plaque in North Kensington to Kelso Cochraine whose unsolved racist murder in 1959 prefigured Stephens by 34 years. It includes the words that his death outraged and unified the community.Mike GuilfoyleLondon

•Doreen Lawrence argues with the force and depth of dreadful experience that racism in Britain hasn't been eradicated in the years since her son, Stephen, was murdered in Eltham. Indeed, as the late Michael Dummett (Obituary, 29 December) demonstrated in his 2001 Immigration and Refugees, xenophobia and racism have been built in to the policies of successive governments in the UK and beyond.

Mrs Thatcher's 1979 declaration that new Commonwealth immigration was swamping these islands is all of a piece with David Cameron and Angela Merkel's recent crude speeches on the need to rally around a strong national monocultural identity. Institutional racism was the norm when Stephen Lawrence was struck down nearly 19 years ago; and remains the norm now. Assistant Commissioner Cressida Dick (Comment, 4 January) says we should be very grateful to Doreen and Neville Lawrence "that Stephen's legacy has been such a force for good".

Meanwhile, racial hatred is commonplace and we all must share responsibility for this, in particular a shared responsibility to challenge such hatred, in whatever form, and assure the Lawrences that their lives and their son's death will not have been in vain.Bruce Ross-Smith

Oxford

• In January 1997 I had the privilege, as executive director of the Anne Frank Trust, of introducing Doreen Lawrence to Tony Blair, just a few months before the landslide that would sweep in a Labour government. At that time the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence was a four-year-old unsolved crime case, hardly mentioned in the press and long having moved on from discussions over dinner tables.

The occasion of the Blair/Lawrence introduction was the launch of a new Anne Frank travelling exhibition, rightly called A History for Today, at Southwark cathedral. As owners of the new exhibition, we had chosen to include a panel about Stephen to show that hatred could destroy another talented teenager's life, not in 1940s Holland, but just a few years ago right here on the streets of London. Featuring Stephen's family photos, his certificates and architectural sketches – all generously loaned by Doreen – and while not comparing the enormity of the holocaust with an individual murder, the panels showed two teenagers separated by 50 years, one an aspiring writer, and one an aspiring architect, and powerfully demonstrated the senselessness of lives of promise having been cut short.

The morning at Southwark cathedral was poignant and memorable, and proved to be significant for our country. I was told a few years later that Tony Blair had been so impressed and moved by Doreen's description of Stephen's life and death that he vowed on that morning that should he become prime minister he would commission a proper enquiry into the handling of Stephen's murder. And so we saw Lord Macpherson's inquiry that changed so much in British institutions.

I would like to pay tribute to the Lawrence family, to their resilience and determination. Stephen's adulthood will never be lived, and like Anne Frank, we can only speculate as to what his life choices and experiences would have been. But from my experience of working with both his parents, he would have been a terrific and caring young man. How cruel a thing is racial bigotry.Gillian WalnesCo-founder and executive director, Anne Frank Trust UK

• The conclusion from the Lawrence trial, is surely that the police should be held to account for their racism. In the two years before Stephen's murder, there had been three other racist murders in the area: Ruhullah Aramesh, Rohit Duggal and Rolan Adams. All of them were attacked by gangs of young, white men wielding knives or iron bars and hurling racist abuse. Racist attacks in the area had soared by 210% since the opening of a British National party "bookshop" (HQ) in Welling.

Yet, despite a national campaign and a 60,000 strong demonstration in October 1993 demanding the closure of the "bookshop", the police proscribed against and prosecuted anti-racists. This was in stark contrast to the treatment meted out to the racist murderers in south-east London. Within one year of the demonstration, 13 young men arrested for being on the demonstration were jailed. The police employed a mass campaign in the press, produced posters, employed helicopters and blanket CCTV. They confiscated clothes, raided homes and practiced surveillance.

It has taken 19 years to get Stephen's murderers sentenced – and only two of them. Anti-racists spend the early 1990s fighting for justice, only to find that the "institutionally racist" police act as a barrier. There is little to indicate that anything has changed since the MacPherson inquiry and much to indicate that the actions and behaviour of the police remain the same. We are still demonstrating against the unexplained black deaths in police custody and defending those who are prosecuted for challenging the English Defence League.Julie WatersonNational secretary, Anti-Nazi League 1992-2003